Changes between Version 43 and Version 44 of u/EricasLibrary

Timestamp:

03/11/13 12:00:09 (12 years ago)

Author:

Erica Kaminski

Comment:

—

u/EricasLibrary

@@ -185 +185 @@
   The paper then begins to set up its motivation - namely that research on flat topped isothermal spheres have begun to be pursued, such as F&C. They say F&C gets more accurate results, but that the collapse is triggered artificially. They plan to take the studies further on non-singular spheres, but by initiating collapse in a more physically relevant way (increasing Pext as suggested by Myers et al). They claim that most of the observational constraints (such as decreasing accretion rate, velocity fields, initial condition) are recovered by this model (although in my opinion - they also seem to have been recovered in F&C model too... so maybe they find MORE accurate lifetimes for their collapsing BE spheres). I find it interesting that they do not call the sphere a Bonnor Ebert sphere, but rather an isothermal sphere... is there any significance to this?
 
+  In their results section they present very weak quantitative results/explanations/insight of their plots. Their different runs are broken down into the rate of compression, in how much time (measured in units of sound crossing time -- ostensibly in terms of the BE sphere) does the Pext double. They initiate the collapse of the critical BE sphere by increasing Pext (by any amount would increase Pext beyond Pcrit as the sphere is already critical), but then they continue to increase Pext throughout the course of the simulation (this potentially is similar to what we did in practice by just allowing the simulation to evolve "naturally" with no forced increase in Pext, simply Pext at the sphere's outer edge increased naturally by the infall of material onto that outer edge).
+
 [[CollapsibleEnd]]